Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 177731

 Alla:
> 
> But how does it not say things about bigotry? I mean, assuming that 
> you buy the idea that Slytherins are really bad ( or Slytherins are 
> Natsis thing), isn't what the book saying for the middle class 
> british kid that saying bad words and thinking that people of 
> different ethnicity is BAD? What Slytherins did are bad, horrible, 
> etc.
> Isn't it much more than the bullying level?

Magpie:
Then it says something so incredibly obvious about bigotry that I 
expect a book trying to say something about bigotry to be beyond it. 
If bigotry was as easy as "don't call people racial slurs unless 
they've done something to deserve it" bigotry isn't much of an issue. 
It certainly doesn't say much about the why's of bigotry at the root 
level.

Alla: 
> I am also not sure why to be challenging the good guys should 
> discover in themselves the same bigotry as Slytherins had and deal 
> with it
> 
> Many people truly do not have it in themselves to be bigots, at 
> least of the type of Purebloods rule, muggleborns need to be 
killed, 
> no?

Magpie:
I've yet to meet anyone myself who didn't have it in themselves to be 
bigots. I notice when the subject comes up many people in dominant 
groups like to claim bigotry is confined to people who call people 
racial slurs when they haven't done enough to deserve it (or 
who "really mean it" when they say it). I think that's a way of 
avoiding talking about bigotry. The good guys are sitting pretty much 
at the top of a society rife with bigotry. I think they're benefiting 
from the bigotry in their society. They don't have to think about it 
beyond how dreadful those other people are, but that statue of the 
MoM, the one that got destroyed, remains as accurate as ever.

Alla:
> 
> I mean, it is again reflection of what was said in thread in 
general 
> and NOT obviously attempt to debate perceptions, but I am just 
> wondering how the message that people of different ethnicity ( 
> muggleborns) are just as good as you are is not challenging.

Magpie:
This series doesn't teach that people of different ethnicities are 
just as good. I think Wizards, particularly British ones, come out 
above plenty of other ethnicities in canon (though again it's a bit 
like with the Slytherins--they really are superior so it's not a 
lie). Harry's last line of the story proper to to think about asking 
his slave (who also just fought in the battle) to make him a 
sandwich. Everyone in their proper place.

Alla:
> I mean, believe it or not, I never in my life called person a 
racist 
> name, I NEVER in my life thought of person of different ethnicity 
as 
> beneath me in some way, shape or form. I had been victim of such 
> discrimination and know how horrible it is, soooo if I am saying 
for 
> example that the type of badness that Slytherin ideology is I do 
not 
> have anywhere in my mind, does it mean that I am projecting, 
> scapegoating?

> I mean, you know that I do not buy that analysis in the first 
place, 
> but I am just wondering if JKR indeed saying that her bad guys have 
> some qualities that good guys do not have, why exactly is this a 
lie?

Magpie:
I'm not touching the personal question, but the good guys are just as 
much a product of their society as the bad guys, and I don't see the 
same invisible line between the behavior of the bad guys and the good 
guys. The bad guys are a lot worse, and the good guys' slips are just 
inconsequential it seems. But no, I don't think we've got a society 
of good guys tainted by those bad guys in Slytherin. I'm surprised 
they don't have multiple Dark Lords of different stripes all the 
time. There's plenty of other instances of soft bigotry on the good 
side as well, and in my years in fandom pointing out often gets the 
answer: They're not Death Eaters. It's fine.

alla:
> 
> Take more extreme example, say what you wish about Harry use of 
> Unforgivables, but instead of killing in DH, he stuns. We can agree 
> that he does not want to kill people, no?
> 
> So it would be a safe inference that he does not have in himself 
> what for example Crabb and Goyle have? They want to kill people, 
> Harry does not. Right?

Magpie:
We're not talking about having it in Harry to kill someone or not 
(I've no idea if he does--maybe he killed people righteously as an 
auror, I don't know. But he's obviously not a sadistic murderer like 
Crabbe.) We're talking about bigotry and other more general less 
noble qualities. Voldemort still looks like a symptom of the WW 
society to me, not the disease. 

Alla:
> They are just by and large not racists and not killers ( well, 
there 
> is Peter, so some of them are). It is a lie? I mean, I am replying 
> to thread in general, but I think it is a very correct observation 
> about human nature - A LOT of people are not racists and killers.

Magpie:
A lot of people are not killers. I don't agree a LOT of people are 
not racists if by this you mean lots of people in a dominant group 
that benefits from racism don't ever contribute to the inequality, 
ignore the inequality or take advantage of that inequality. Certainly 
not Harry and his friends who are surrounded by groups treated 
differently than their own and rarely spend much time thinking about 
it.  

Basically, based on what I'm hearing of your view of bigotry in 
general, I just don't agree with it. 

-m